Hi Adam,
Ã For example, a button with a triangle icon indicating current state (or is it indicating outcome?) that rotates 90Âº and toggles an expandable section. The button includes offscreen text that says 'show/hide xyz'.
While your example could fail 1.3.3 Info and relationships, I feel that it fits more closely as a 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat-rsv.html> issue. The triangle itself doesn't need to be described at all, i.e clearly it'll be useless to tell the screen reader user that the triangle rotated 90 degrees, but we do need to let the screen reader user know if the expandable section is expanded or collapsed, which is the "Value/State" part of 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. WAI has provided some techniques for resolving this, such as using ARIA-expanded: (code examples)<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_the_WAI-ARIA_aria-expanded_state_to_mark_expandable_and_collapsible_regions>.
F26<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F26.html> fails 1.3.3 Info and Relationships because you're using a meaningless symbol to display important information, I feel that it fits better under 1.3.1 Info and Relationships than anywhere else. 1.1.1 Non-text content focuses on Images, graphs, infographics, diagrams etc.. Whereas symbols and glyphs can be inserted with real-text, which wouldn't make much sense under 1.1.1. The example in F26 addresses using Glyphs/symbols to present important information, so I personally think F26 is ok, but I'm happy to explore/discuss this further.
Cheers,
Matthew Putland
Senior Analyst, Digital Accessibility | Media Access Australia
61 Kitchener Avenue, Victoria Park WA 6100
Tel: 08 9311 8230 (direct) 02 9212 6242 (main) Mobile: 0431 924 288 Web: www.mediaaccess.org.au<http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/>
My working hours are from 11am-7:30pm AEST (8am-4:30pm AWST).
Media Access Australia<http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/> - inclusion through technology and Access iQÂ®<http://www.accessiq.org/> - creating a web without limits. Follow us on Twitter @mediaaccessaus<https://twitter.com/mediaaccessaus> @AccessiQ<https://twitter.com/accessiq>
From: Adam Cooper [mailto:cooperad@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sunday, 20 November 2016 12:25 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: SC 1.3.3 - text alternative or no visible label?
hi all,
There is some debate at my work about whether (non-decorative) 'graphical symbols' need to have visible labels when they provide instruction.
So I have a question about SC1.3.3.
Is it reasonable to infer from SC1.3.3 that instructions conveyed non-verbally must be accompanied by some form of visible text?
For example, a button with a triangle icon indicating current state (or is it indicating outcome?) that rotates 90Âº and toggles an expandable section. The button includes offscreen text that says 'show/hide xyz'.
Is this sufficient to meet SC 1.3.3?
Should anything be read into the use of 'glyph' and 'symbol' in failure technique F26?
Should F26 be under SC1.1.1 instead?
cheers,
Adam
This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com<http://www.bullguard.com/tracking.aspx?affiliate=bullguard&buyaffiliate=smtp&url=/>